-3\  S 


Alv.vjsni  Jlcove 


THE   AXrHROPOKKiY  OF 


AOHTIOXISM    AM)    THH   BIBLE. 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 

in  2010  witin  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/anthropologyofevOOduff 


THE  ANTHROPOLOGY  OF 
EVOLUTIONISM  AND  THE  BIBLE, 


JOHN  T.  DUFFIELD.  D.D., 

t'ROFESSOR    OK    MATHKMAXrCS    IN    THK    COLLEGE    OK    NEW     lEKSKY. 


j'JijycE'Joy : 

PRIVTINIi    ESTAHMSHMRNT, 


[Frum  thk  Jan.  N(1.  ok  ••  Vhk  Princkton  Rkvif.w."*] 


Is  Evohitionis7n  as  it  res  fie  ds  Man, 
co7tsistent  zvith  the  Bible  / 

In  discussing  the  relations  of  Science  and  Religion,  it  is 
frequently  said  that  Evolutionism  is  not  inconsistent  with 
either  Theism  or  Revealed  Religion.  That  it  does  not  neces- 
sarily exclude  the  idea  of  a  personal  Creator  of  the  universe 
may  be  admitted.  At  the  same  time  it  should  be  borne  in 
mind  that  the  hypothesis  was  originally  proposed  by  old  Greek- 
atheists  ;  that  within  the  past  century  it  was  revived  in  the 
interest  of  atheism;  and  at  the  present  day,  as  stated  and  de- 
fended by  many  of  its  most  prominent  advocates,  it  is  avowedly 
atheistic.  This  historical  attitude  of  Evolutionism  cannot  be 
wholly  accidental,  and  deserves  the  consideration  of  those  who 
may  be  disposed  to  regard  the  hypothesis  as  a  harmless  scien- 
tific speculation. 

That  it  may  be  held  in  consistency  with  Theism  is,  how- 
ever, a  matter  of  comparatively  little  moment.  The  import- 
ant question  is  its  relation  to  Revealed  Religion. 

That  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  Scriptures,  is  maintained 
by  Mivart,  a  devout  Romanist,  in  his  work  on  "  The  Genesis 
of  Species."  It  is  distinctly  intimated  by  Professor  Gray,  a 
devout  Protestant,  in  the  Preface  to  "  Darwiniana."  It  is  also 
avowed  by  some  eminent  believers  in  and  even  defenders  of 

*Some  sentences  which  were  slightly  allered  for  publication  in  the  Review, 
to  render  the  Article  impersonal,  are  here  printed  as  originally  written.  A  few 
other  changes  in  phraseology  have  been  made,  to  express  the  idea  intended  more 
clearly — such  changes  as  would  have  been  made  in  the  Article  as  published  in 
the  Review  had  the  proof-sheets  been  revised  by  the  writer.  The  only  additions 
that  need  be  particularly  mentioned,  are  the  sentences  on  the  finirth  page  con- 
taining quotations,  and  the  foot  notes  on  pages  22  and  30. 


the  inspiration  of  tiie  Scriptures,  who  are  not  Evolutionists. 
In  the  Introduction  to  the  very  interesting  and  eloquent  Course 
of  Lectures  on  "  Christianity  and  Science,"  delivered  before 
the  Union  Theological  Seminary  in  New  York,  in  1874,  by 
Dr.  Peabody  of  Harvard,  he  says,  "  I  do  not  regard  the  theory 
of  development  or  evolution,  now  so  generally  received  among 
scientific  men,  as  necessarily  hostile  to  religious  faith,  for  there 
are  among  its  most  intelligent  adherents  some  earnest  and  de- 
vout Christian  believers.  Moreover,  there  are  certain  aspects 
in  which  this  theory  is  peculiarly  attractive  on  religious 
grounds.  If  specific  creation  implies  creative  wisdom,  much 
more  is  it  implied  in  the  endowment  of  primeval  atoms  or 
monads  with  the  power  of  development  into  all  the  various 
and  unnumbered  forms  of  organized,  sentient,  intelligent, 
moral,  spiritual  being  ;  and  we  have  thus  presented  to  us,  were 
it  possible,  even  a  more  sublime  significance  for  the  opening 
words  of  the  Mebrew  Scriptures,  '  In  the  beginning  God 
created  the  heavens  and  the  earth.'  "  In  the  Episcopal  Church 
Congress  which  met  in  Philadelphia  in  1875,  the  President 
of  Union  College  is  reported  as  .saying,  "  Competent  scholars 
hold  that  the  idea  of  evolution,  not  only  in  the  successive 
periods  of  the  genesis,  but  in  the  progress  from  lower  to 
higher  forms  culminating  in  man,  is  readily  reconcilable,  if  not 
in  strictest  accordance  with,  the  original  Scriptures."  In 
an  admirable  exposure  of  the  fallacy  of  Professor  Huxley's 
pretended  "  demonstration  "  of  evolution,  published  in  the 
New  York  Tribune  in  Jan.  1876,  by  one  of  the  most  eminent 
evangelical  ministers  of  New  York  City,  he  says,  "  I  have 
no  prejudice  against  evolution  if  that  shall  ever  be  fairly 
and  fully  established.  I  believe  that  it  may  be  held  in 
harmony  with  Theism,  and  with  a  sincere  acceptance  of  the 
Word  of  God."  The  opinion  expressed  in  these  quotations 
is  implied  in  the  admonition  nowadays  frequently  given, 
that  believers  in  revelation  should  treat  the  truth  or  falsity  of 
Evolutionism  as  an  open  question,  assured,  that  however  it 
may  be  ultimately  determined,  the  Scriptures  can  be  interpreted 
in  accordance  with  the  result. 

It  will  scarcely  be  denied,  that  if  this  opinion  be  erroneous, 
it  is  a  serious  error,  and  none  the  less  but  all  the  more  danger- 


ous  when  avowed  by  those  who  accept  and  defend  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Scriptures.  Nor  are  the  consequences  of  the  error 
— if  it  be  an  error — avoided  or  mitigated  by  maintaining,  as 
most  of  those  referred  to  do,  that  Evolutionism  is  as  yet  an  un- 
proved hypothesis.  The  assertion  in  question  has  really  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  truth  or  falsity  of  Evolutionism.  It  has 
respect  to  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures,  and  asserts  that 
whether  the  hypothesis  be  true  or  false,  it  is  not  inconsistent 
with  the  Bible.  The  question  is  therefore  one  of  present  and 
of  vital  importance,  affecting  as  it  does,  what  men  are  to  be- 
lieve, and  what  the  Christian  ministry  is  to  teach,  concerning 
the  origin  of  man,  his  nature,  and  his  destiny. 

Believing  that  Evolutionism,  however  it  may  in  other  re- 
spects be  harmonized  with  the  Scriptures,  is  in  direct  conflict 
with  Biblical  Anthropology  and  the  entire  system  of  truth  con- 
nected therewith  in  the  Word  of  God,  we  feci  that  the  opinion 
referred  to,  when  asserted  without  qualification,  ought  not  to 
be  permitted  to  pass  unchallenged.  We  propose  therefore  for 
consideration.  Is  Evoliitionis))i  as  it  respects  Man,  co7isiste)it  ivitJi 
the  Bible  ? 

It  is  proper  here  to  state  that  we  recognize  it  as  a  just  and 
important  principle  in  interpreting  Scripture,  to  avoid  as  far 
as  possible,  collision — or  the  liability  to  collision — with  scien- 
tists. At  the  same  time,  in  contracting  the  lines,  to  present  as 
few  vulnerable  points  as  possible,  care  should  be  taken  not  to 
abandon  a  position  that  may  command  the  citadel.  Whether 
the  Anthropology  of  the  Bible  is  such  a  position  will  appear 
in  the  progress  of  the  discussion. 

We  deem  it  proper  also  to  state  that  we  have  no  sympathy 
with  those  who  are  disposed  to  magnify  the  so-called  conflict 
between  Science  and  Religion.  Between  believers  in  the 
Scriptures  and  scientists  not  avowedly  atheistic,  the  only  sub- 
jects that  need  occasion  serious  controversy  are  the  one  pro- 
posed for  discussion,  and  the  order  of  creation.  This  latter 
subject  moreover,  apart  from  its  bearing  on  the  question  of 
inspiration,  is  comparatively  unimportant,  as  it  in  no  way 
affects  the  system  of  spiritual  truth  taught  in  the  Word  of  God. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  discussion  of  the  question  pro- 
posed, it  is  proper  to  define  what  is  here  meant-by  Evolution- 


6 

ism.  This  is  the  more  necessary  from  the  fact  that  in  discus- 
sing the  relation  of  Evolutionism  to  Religion,  the  precise  issue 
is  frequently  obscured  by  an  ambiguous  use  of  the  term  evolu- 
tion. It  is  asserted  that  the  growth  of  every  thing  that  lives — 
plant,  tree,  insect,  animal,  man — is  an  evolution;  that  the 
development  of  man's  intellectual  and  moral  faculties  is  an 
evolution ;  that  there  is  evolution  in  history,  operating  on 
men  in  the  mass,  elevating  them  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  state 
of  civilization,  developing  a  more  and  more  completely  organ- 
ized social  and  national  life  ;  that  there  is  evolution  in  the 
kingdom  of  grace,  both  in  the  spiritual  growth  of  the  individ- 
ual Christian  and  in  the  development  of  doctrine  and  spiritual 
power  in  the  Church — "  first  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  then 
the  full  corn  in  the  ear."  Now  if  any  one  sees  fit  to  designate 
every  form  of  progressive  development  in  nature,  providence, 
and  grace,  as  an  evolution,  he  may,  of  course,  so  far  as  the 
etymology  of  the  world  is  concerned,  do  so  without  any  serious 
impropriety,  yet  in  view  of  existing  controversies  concerning 
evolution,  such  language  is  misleading.  As  to  the  truth  of 
evolution  in  any  of  the  senses  above  mentioned,  there  is,  and 
has  been,  no  dispute.  In  any  issues  that  have  been  raised 
between  Theologians  and  Evolutionists,  the  term  is  used  in 
an  entirely  different  sense.  It  has  been  technically  appropri- 
ated to  designate  a  certain  scientific  hypothesis  as  to  the  genesis 
of  the  universe,  namely,  that  out  of  an  original  mass  of  nebu- 
lous, amorphous,  unorganized  matter,  all  the  various  forms  of 
inorganic  matter  and  living  organisms — including  all  the  prop- 
erties of  such  organisms — were  evolved  by  pre-established  phys- 
ical laws.  The  term  is  frequently  used  with  particular  refer- 
ence to  that  part  of  the  hypothesis  which  relates  to  the  origin 
of  species,  namely,  that  out  of  an  original  germ  or  germs  of  life 
in  its  lowest  form — however  they  may  have  originated — higher 
and  still  higher  forms  were  evolved  by  "  natural  selection." 
or  some  other  physical  law  or  laws,  and  that  thus  all  the  differ- 
ent forms,  varieties,  and  species  of  vegetable  and  animal  life — 
man  included — that  have  existed  or  now  exist,  originated.  As 
mentioned  above,  some  Evolutionists  accept,  while  others  re- 
ject the  doctrine  of  a  personal  Creator  of  the  original  material 


of  the  universe,  the  source  of  the  original  physical  forces,  and 
the  author  of  the  laws  of  their  action.  Between  atheistic 
Evolutionists  and  believers  in  the  Scriptures,  the  issue  is,  of 
course,  radical  and  irreconcilable.  Between  theistic  Evolu- 
tionists and  believers  in  revelation,  the  main  issue  has  respect 
to  the  Origin  of  Man,  and  what  is  involved  therein  as  to  his 
nature  and  his  destiny.  Darwin's  first  work  on  "  The  Origin 
of  Species  "  was  not  generally  regarded  as  involving  any 
serious  or  irreconcilable  conflict  with  the  Scriptures.  Intima- 
tions as  to  the  extent  to  which  the  hypothesis  might  be  pressed 
did  excite  some  apprehension,  but  it  was  not  until  these  inti- 
mations were  distinctly  avowed  and  laboriously  advocated  in 
his  subsequent  work  on  "  The  Descent  of  Man,"  that  the  great 
mass  of  believers  in  revelation  and  the  entire  mass  of  un- 
believers felt  that  the  Scriptures  were  assailed,  and  that  Evolu- 
tionism had  become  a  religious  question,  and  one  of  vital  im- 
portance. 

The  proposed  inquiry  has  reference  to  the  issue  just  men- 
tioned :  Is  Evohitionism  as  it  respects  Man — asserting  as  it  does 
that  man  was  not  created  by  immediate  divine  agency  but  was 
evolved  out  of  an  ape — consistent  zvith  the  Bible  ? 

It  should  be  observed  that  the  question  here  proposed  is 
not — immediately,  at  least— a  scientific  question.  It  does  not 
require  for  its  intelligent  discussion  an  investigation  of,  or  even 
a  knowledge  of,  the  alleged  scientific  facts  on  which  the 
hypothesis  is  based.  It  has  to  do  simply  and  solely  with  the 
teaching  of  Scripture. 

Nor  is  the  question  proposed—  immediately,  at  least — a 
philosophical  question.  It  cannot  be  decided  by  first  premi- 
sing certain  general  principles  as  to  the  respective  domains  of 
Science  and  Religion,  the  authority  of  each  within  its  own 
sphere,  and  their  mutual  relations  to  each  other,  and  then — 
by  an  application  of  these  principles — determining  what  the 
Scriptures  do  teach,  or  at  least  what  they  must  be  interpreted 
as  teaching,  if  their  infallibility  is  to  be  maintained.  The 
question  is  simply  one  of  hermeneutics,  of  exegesis,  of  the 
interpretation  of  the  language  of  Scripture.  It  is  to  be  deter- 
mined just  as  one  would  determine  whether  the  doctrine  of 


metempsychosis  is  consistent  with  the  Scriptures,  or  whether 
the  Copernican  theory  of  the  universe  is  consistent  with  the 
Vedas,  or  whether  the  issue  of  legal-tender  notes  is  consistent 
with  the  Federal  Constitution— questions  evidently  to  be  de- 
termined in  each  case  in  no  other  way  than  by  an  examination 
of  the  document  referred  to.  To  this  inquiry  attention  is  now 
invited. 

The  origin  of  man,  as  stated  in  Genesis  2  :  7,  is  in  these 
words,  "  The  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground, 
and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life  ;  and  man  be- 
came a  living  soul." 

Were  this  the  entire  scriptural  record  on  the  subject — as 
many  seem  to  assume — there  would  be  no  serious  difficulty  in 
interpreting  it  in  harmony  with  the  hypothesis  of  evolution. 
The  Divine  Creator  of  all  things  was  not  only  originally  the 
author  of  the  universe,  but  has  continuously  been  the  upholder 
and  controller  of  the  various  forces  in  nature,  acting  cease- 
lessly according  to  the  laws  which  he  has  established.  Ac- 
cordingly, phenomena  which  are  immediately  the  result  of 
these  forces,  operating  it  maybe  through  long  periods  of  time, 
are  in  the  Scriptures  frequently  attributed  to  God,  and  in  terms 
that  might  at  first  sight  seem  to  imply  the  direct  divine  agency. 
The  declaration,  "  And  God  said.  Let  there  be  light,  and  there 
was  light,"  would  undoubtedly  at  first  sight  seem  to  imply — 
and  yet  it  does  not  necessarily  imply — that  the  production  of 
light  was  by  the  immediate  divine  agency,  and  was  instan- 
taneous. Moreover,  as  with  the  Eternal  One  "  a  thousand 
years  are  as  one  day,"  in  interpreting  the  record  of  his  creative 
work,  we  should  be  careful  not  to  impose  limitations  of  time 
and  mode  of  operation  that  are  not  explicitly  asserted.  The 
passage  above  quoted  as  to  the  origin  of  man  contains  no  such 
limitations.  It  simply  asserts  the  important  fact  that  "  God 
formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  earth,"  but  contains  no  intima- 
tion as  to  the  mode  of  this  creative  act  or  the  duration  of 
the  process.  There  is  nothing,  therefore,  in  this  language, 
taken  by  itself,  that  is  necessarily  inconsistent  with  the  hypothe- 
sis of  evolution. 

But  the  passage  referred  to  by  no  means  exhausts  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Scriptures  concerning  the  origin  of  our  race.     This 


general  statement  of  the  seventh  verse  is  followed  at  the  eigh- 
teenth verse  by  the  more  specific,  and  as  respects  the  question 
under  consideration,  the  far  more  important  declaration,  "  And 
the  Lord  God  said.  It  is  not  good  for  man  to  be  alone,"  thus  limit- 
ing the  reference  in  the  seventh  verse  to  the  creation  of  the  indi- 
vidual man,  Adam.  "  And  God  said,  I  will  make  a  helpmeet 
for  him.  And  the  Lord  God  caused  a  deep  sleep  to  fall  upon 
Adam,  and  he  slept  ;  and  he  took  one  of  his  ribs,  and  closed 
up  the  flesh  instead  thereof  And  the  rib,  which  the  Lord 
God  had  taken  from  man,  made  he  a  woman,  and  brought  her 
unto  the  man.  And  Adam  said.  This  is  now  bone  of  my 
bone  and  flesh  of  my  flesh  :  she  shall  be  called  Woman,  be- 
cause she  was  taken  out  of  man."     (Gen.  2  :  21-23.) 

This  account  of  the  creation  o{  zvouiaii—  X.\\^\.  is,  of  the  first 
woman,  Eve — "  the  mother  of  all  living"  as  she  is  subsequently 
called  (3  :  20) — has  a  most  important  bearing  on  the  question 
at  issue.  Unlike  the  former  passage,  its  statements  are  specific 
and  unambiguous.  It  asserts  distinctly,  first,  that  the  creation 
of  zvoman  was  not  synchronous  with,  but  subsequent  to,  the 
creation  o{  man  ;  and,  secondly,  it  asserts  with  a  particularity 
of  detail  which  precludes  all  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  intended, 
that  the  creation  of  woman  was  not  by  the  ordinary  mode  of 
generation,  but  was  strictly  supernatural,  miraculous,  wrought 
by  immediate  divine  agency.  Now  it  will  scarcely  be  denied 
that  if  this  language  is  to  be  taken  as  a  literal  record  of  an 
historical  fact,  it  is  utterly  irreconcilable  with  Evolutionism. 
To  assert  the  contrary  would  be  simply  to  assert  a  contradic- 
tion in  terms.  Evolutionists,  with  scarce  an  exception,  not 
only  acknowledge  the  inconsistency,  but  insist  upon  it,  and 
accordingly  reject — often  with  ridicule — the  scriptural  account 
of  the  origin  of  the  race. 

To  those  who  receive  the  Scriptures  as  the  Word  of  God, 
and  yet  maintain  that  Evolutionism  is  not  inconsistent  with 
Revealed  Religion,  the  language  above  quoted  undoubtedly  pre- 
sents a  most  serious  difficulty.  In  the  preface  to  his  work  on 
"  Religion  and  Science,"  President  Le  Conte  says,  "  It  is  an 
earnest  attempt  to  reconcile  the  truths  of  Scripture  with  those 
revealed  in  nature."     As  might  be  anticipated  from  the  char- 


10 

acter  of  the  eminent  author — an  authority  in  science,  an  accom- 
plished rhetorician  and  logician,  at  the  same  time  a  believer — 
his  work  is  a  valuable  contribution  to  the  discussion  of  the 
relations  of  Science  and  Religion,  and  on  many  of  the  points 
involved  in  controversy  he  has,  in  the  defence  of  revealed 
truth,  rendered  most  important  service.  And  yet  -  as  remark- 
ed by  Professor  Gray  in  his  notice  of  the  work — "  one  or  two 
topics  that  would  naturally  come  in  his  way,  such  especially, 
as  the  relation  of  evolution  to  the  human  race,  are  somewhat 
conspicuously  absent." 

Professor  Gray,  in  several  articles  in  "  Darwiniana"  main- 
tains that  Evolutionism  is  not  necessarily  inconsistent  with 
Natural  Religion — and  we  should  say  successfully,  if  Natural 
Religion  included  nothing  more  than  belief  in  an  intelligent, 
personal  Creator  of  the  universe.  How  he  would  harmonize 
the  Scriptures  with  the  hypothesis,  he  does  not  intimate — 
unless  we  except  the  incidental  remark,  that  Dr.  Hodge  makes 
"  the  implicit  assumption  that  the  Bible  must  needs  teach  true 
science." 

To  remove  the  difficult}'  of  harmonizing  the  scriptural 
account  of  the  origin  of  man  with  Evolutionism,  two  theories 
have  been  suggested.  One  is,  that  the  Scriptures  were  not 
given  to  reveal  truths  of  physical  science,  but  spiritual  and 
divine  truths,  to  a  knowledge  of  which  men  could  not  have 
attained  by  the  light  of  reason  or  nature  ;  that  in  regard  to  the 
former  class  of  truths,  the  sacred  writers  accepted  the  belief 
and  used  the  language  current  in  the  age  in  which  they  lived  ; 
that  consequently  on  such  subjects  they  are  not  to  be  regarded 
as  infallible.  It  is  alleged  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  their  opin- 
ions on  matters  of  science  were  often  erroneous — as,  for  exam- 
ple, Job's  allusion  to  the  want  of  maternal  affection  in,  the 
ostrich,  Solomon's  reference  to  the  foresight  of  ants  in  making 
provision  for  the  winter,  and  Joshua's  belief  that  the  sun 
revolved  about  the  earth.  On  this  theory,  the  biblical  account 
of  the  origin  of  man  is  simply  the  opinion  which  prevailed  at 
the  time  the  Book  was  written,  and  is  not  to  be  regarded  as 
infallible. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  show,  as  might  be  done,  that  these 
alleged  errors  of  the  sacred  writers  furnish  no   basis   for  the 


11 

theory  referred  to.  For  our  present  purpose  it  is  sufficient  to 
reply ,  Jirsl-,  this  theory  does  not  deny,  but  was  framed  for  the 
-very  purpose  of  accounting  for  (therein  acknowledging)  that 
which  cannot  be  denied — that  Evolutionism  and  the  scriptural 
account  of  the  origin  of  man  are  irreconcilable.  This  is  the 
precise  point,  at  issue  in  the  present  discussion.  Secondly, 
if  the  alleged  errors  of  the  sacred  writers  were  admitted, 
it  is  a  palpable  fallac)'  to  deduce  a  principle  of  interpreta- 
tion from  certain  incidental  alhtsions  in  the  Scriptures  to 
scientific  truths,  and  then  apply  this  principle  to  the  interpre- 
tation of  an  extended,  detailed,  and  explicit  statement,  recorded 
evidently  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  communicate  truth  on 
the  subject  treated  of — truth  moreover,  of  which,  from  its  very 
nature,  man  could  not  have  any  knowledge  except  by  revela- 
tion. Thirdly,  while  it  is  true  that  the  Bible  was  not  given  to 
teach  men  physical  science,  it  is  just  as  true,  that  as  incidental 
to  its  main  object — in  regard  to  the  subject  in  question  we  may 
even  say  as  necessary  to  its  main  object — it  does  contain  the 
distinct  statement  of  certain  scientific  facts.  Now,  so  far  as 
the  Bible  professes  to  teach  such  facts,  it  cannot  be  maintained 
that  its  teaching  is  untrustworthy  without  admitting  a  princi- 
ple which  vitiates  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  on  all  other 
subjects.  On  this  point  Principal  Dawson,  in  his  "  Nature 
and  Religion" — a  work  which  admirably  exposes  how  incon- 
clusive is  the  alleged  scientific  evidence  in  favor  of  Evolution- 
maintains,  "  I  wish  to  enforce  the  important  principle  that  with 
respect  to  the  history  of  creation  and  the  subsequent  reference 
to  it,  we  cannot  rest  in  the  general  statement  that  the  Bible  is 
not  intended  to  teach  science  any  more  than  we  can  excuse 
inaccuracy  as  to  historical  facts  by  the  notion  that  the  Bible 
was  not  intended  to  teach  history."  Foutthly,  it  is  impossible 
so  to  define  the  boundaries  of  the  respective  domains  of  Sci- 
ence and  Revealed  Religion  that  they  shall  not  at  certain  points 
overlap  each  other.  From  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  there 
is  unavoidably  a  common  ground  covered  by  truths  which  in 
one  aspect  are  scientific  and  in  another  aspect  are  religious — 
it  may  be,  religious  truths  of  the  highest  importance.  Now, 
if  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures  on  such  subjects   be   distinct 


12 

and  unequivocal,  are  we  at  liberty  to  treat  it  as  obscure  or 
erroneous,  because  forsooth,  it  is  in  conflict  with  some  current 
scientific  speculation  ?  Moreover,  the  distinction  between  scien- 
tific truths  and  spiritual  truths,  however  just  in  reference  to 
other  subjects,  is  wholly  inapplicable  to  the  particular  subject 
in  question.  The  important  bearing  of  the  doctrine  of  Evolu- 
tion on  the  spiritual  truths  revealed  in  the  word  of  God  will 
be  made  manifest  in  the  progress  of  this  discussion.  Fifthly, 
the  theory  in  question  is  in  direct  conflict  with  the  teaching 
of  the  Apostle,  "  All  scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God." 

The  other  theory  referred  to  is  that  the  Biblical  account  of 
the  creation  and  fall  of  man  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  history, 
but  a  myth  or  an  allegory — to  be  interpreted,  not  literally,  but 
figuratively.  This  theory  has  the  advantage  of  the  preceding  in 
that  it  recognizes  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  Mosaic  record. 
And  as  the  Scriptures  do  undoubtedl)-  contain  parables  and 
allegories,  it  is  not  necessarily  inadmissible.  The  question  is 
simply  an  exegetical  one.  In  view  of  the  connection  in  whicii 
the  language  occurs,  is  the  reader  at  liberty  to  treat  it  as  a 
myth  or  an  allegory  ?  In  answer  to  this  question  we  remark — 
the  language  referred  to  is  inseparably  joined  to  the  record  which 
follows,  reaching  down  to  persons  and  events  that  are  beyond 
all  question  historical.  The  genealogical  links  which  connect 
the  Israelites  in  Egypt  with  Adam  and  Eve  in  Eden  are  ex- 
plicitly given.  The  children  of  Adam  are  mentioned  in  lan- 
guage identical  with  that  used  in  reference  to  the  children  of 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob.  Now  unless  it  be  assumed  that 
allegorical  parents  can  beget  historical  children,  the  theory 
v/ould  seem  to  be  untenable. 

But  further,  in  reference  to  both  the  the  theories  referred 
to — throughout  the  Scriptures,  there  are  repeated  references  to 
the  Mosaic  account  of  the  origin  of  the  race,  and  not  only  is 
there  no  intimation  that  the  record  in  question  is  either  myth- 
ical or  untrustworthy,  but  it  is  uniformly  regarded  as  veritable 
history,  and  its  literal  interpretation  assumed  and  asserted. 

In  the  First  Book  of  Chronicles  the  descent  of  the  histori- 
cal nations  of  that  day  is  traced  back  to  Noah  and  through 
him  to  Adam — the  writer  evidently  regarding  the  narrative  in 
Genesis  as  the  literal  record  of  an  historical  fact. 


13 

The  genealogy  of  the  Saviour,  given  in  the  third  chapter 
of  Luke,  is,  that  he  was,  "  as  was  supposed,  the  son  of  Joseph, 
who  was  the  son  of  Heli,"'  and  so  backward  through  David, 
and  Abraham,  and  Noah  to  "  Seth,  who  was  the  son  of  Adam, 
who  was,"  according  to  the  Evangelist,  not  the  son  of  an  ape. 
but  "  the  Son  of  God.'' 

In  his  reply  to  the  question  of  the  Pharisees,  "  Is  it  lawful 
for  a  man  to  put  away  his  wife  for  every  cause  ?"  Jesus  him- 
self assumes  the  literal  truth  of  the  record  in  Genesis.  "  He 
answered  and  said  unto  them,  Have  ye  not  read,  that  he  which 
made  them  at  the  beginning  made  them  male  and  female,  and 
said.  For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  father  and  mother  and 
shall  cleave  to  his  wife,  and  they  twain  shall  be  one  flesh  ?" 
Matt.  19  :  3-5. 

In  the  fifth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Paul  as- 
sumes the  historical  character  and  the  infallible  truth  of  the 
record  in  Genesis  concerning  the  origin  and  fell  of  man,  and 
makes  it  the  basis  of  one  of  the  most  important  doctrines  of 
Scripture — in  fact,  a  fundamental  doctrine  in  the  evangelical 
system  of  religion.  "  By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world, 
and  death  by  sin  ;  and  so  death  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that 
all  have  sinned."  "  Death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses,  even 
over  them  that  had  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's 
transgression,  who  is  the  figure  of  him  who  was  to  come." 
"  If  through  the  offence  of  one  many  be  dead,  much  more  the 
grace  of  God,  and  the  gift  by  grace,  which  is  by  one  man, 
Jesus  Christ,  hath  abounded  unto  many."  If  the  record  in 
Genesis  is  not  veritable  history,  then  Paul  has  misapprehended 
its  meaning,  and  his  argument  is  a  fallacy. 

Again,  in  his  notable  argument  in  defence  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  resurrection,  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  the  First  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians,  Paul  assumes  the  literality  and  the  truth  of 
the  Mosaic  record.  "  By  man  came  death,  by  man  came  also 
the  resurrection  from  the  dead.  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even 
so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  "  And  so  it  is  written, 
The  first  man  Adam  was  make  a  living  soul  ;  the  last  Adam 
was  made  a  quickening  spirit."  "  The  first  man  is  of  the  earth, 
earthy ;  the  second  man  is  the  Lord  from  heaven." 


14 

Again,  in  the  eleventh  chapter  of  this  same  Epistle,  Paul  ac- 
cepts as  literally  true  that  portion  of  the  Mosaic  record  most 
troublesome  to  those  who  would  harmonize  Evolutionism  and 
Revelation — the  account  of  the  supernatural  creation  olzvoman, 
and  the  priority  of  the  creation  of  man.  "  The  man,"  says  he, 
"  is  not  of  the  woman,  but  the  woman  of  the  man  ;  neither 
was  the  man  created  for  the  woman,  but  the  woman  for  the 
man."  So  also  in  ist.  Tim.  2:  12-15.  "  I  suffer  not  a  woman 
to  teach  nor  to  usurp  authority  over  the  man.  For  Adam  was 
first  formed,  then  Eve.  And  Adam  was  not  deceived,  but  the 
woman  being  deceived  was  in  the  transgression."  Now,  again, 
it  should  be  observed,  if  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  creation 
and  fall  of  Adam  and  Eve  is  not  veritable  history,  then  not 
only  has  the  Apostle  misapprehended  its  meaning,  but  his  argu- 
ment, based  upon  the  literal  truth  of  the  record,  is  fallacious. 

Once  more,  when  Jude  refers  to  Enoch  as  an  historical 
character,  "the  seventh  from  Adam,"  he  evidently  regards  the 
narrative  in  Genesis  as  a  record  of  historical  facts. 

From  the  above  quotations  it  is  e\'ident  that  the  question 
as  to  the  consistency  of  Evolutionism  and  the  Bible  involves 
not  the  Mosaic  record  alone,  as  many  seem  to  assume — the 
Scriptures  just  referred  to  are  equally  entitled  to  considera- 
tion. And  further,  it  should  be  observed,  these  Scriptures 
have  a  twofold  bearing  on  the  question  at  issue — first,  as  an 
in.spired  interpretation  of  the  Mosaic  record  ;  and  secondly, 
as  independent  Scriptural  teaching  concerning  the  origin  of 
man — teaching  moreover,  in  regard  to  which  no  believer  in 
the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  will  maintain  that  either  the 
mythical  theory,  or  the  theory  that  the  sacred  writers  are  not 
to  be  regarded  as  infallible  when  treating  of  matters  of  science, 
is  applicable. 

The  conclusion  seems  inevitable  that  whether  the  doctrine 
of  the  Scriptures  concerning  the  origin  of  man  be  true  or  false, 
there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  as  to  what  that  doctrine  is, 
and  that  it  is  not  consistent  with  the  hypothesis  of  evolution. 
If  the  teaching  of  the  Bible  on  this  subject  can  be  regarded 
as  an  open  question,  then  none  can  assert  with  confidence  what 
it  teaches   on   any  subject.     The   doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the 


15 

Divinity  of  Christ,  the  Personality  of  the  Spirit,  the  true  theory 
of  the  Church,  of  the  Christian  ministry,  of  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath, the  subjects  and  mode  of  Baptism,  and  other  important 
doctrines  that  might  be  mentioned,  are  not  taught  in  the  Scrip- 
tures more  distinctly  and  conclusively  than  is  the  doctrine  that 
the  human  race  is  descended  from  a  single  pair — not  evolved 
by  "  natural  selection,"  or  any  other  physical  law  or  laws,  out 
of  apes,  but  created  supernaturally  by  immediate  divine  agency. 
The  teaching  of  the  Scriptures  concerning  the  other  doctrines 
above  mentioned  has  for  ages  been,  and  continues  to  be,  con- 
troverted. The  Scriptural  teaching  as  to  the  origin  of  man 
has  not  until  recently  been  called  in  question,  and  doubtless 
would  not  now  be,  were  it  not  for  the  supposed  exigency  in 
consequence  of  recent  scientific  speculations.  However  urgent 
the  exigency,  unless  the  speculations  of  scientists,  or  even  the 
logic  of  facts,  can  alter  the  language  of  a  written  document, 
it  would  seem  to  be  impossible  to  harmonize  Evolutionism,  as 
it  respects  the  origin  of  man,  with  Revelation. 

The  discussion  has  thus  far  been  restricted  to  an  examina- 
tion of  the  direct  teaching  of  the  Scriptures  as  to  the  origin  of 
man.  A  more  serious  conflict,  if  possible,  between  Evolu- 
tionism and  the  Bible  remains  to  be  considered. 

Whatever  question  may  be  raised  as  to  the  authority  of 
Scripture  on  scientific  subjects  in  general,  or  the  interpretation 
of  the  language  of  Scripture  on  the  particular  subject  above 
mentioned,  all  who  accept  the  Bible  as  a  revelation  from  God 
agree  that  it  teaches  important  truths  concerning  spiritual  and 
divine  things,  and  that  on  such  subjects  its  authority  is  supreme 
and  final.  Now  Evolutionism  is  not  only  inconsistent,  as  we 
have  seen,  with  the  direct  Biblical  teaching  concerning  the 
origin  of  man — it  is  utterly  irreconcilable  with  all  that  is  taught 
in  the  Word  of  God  concerning  jnan's  spiritual  nature,  the 
nature  of  sin,  the  zvay  of  viaus  sah'ation,  and  Jus  destiny — in  a 
word,  the  entire  system  of  spiritual  truths  for  the  revelation 
of  which  the  Scriptures  were  given  to  men. 

First,  the  hypothesis  is  in  conflict  with  the  teaching  of  the 
Scriptures  concerning  man's  spiritual  nature,  both  as  to  what 
it   was   originally,  and  what   it   subsequently  became  —  in   the 


16 

language  of  the  Catechism,  "  the  estate  in  which  man  was 
created,"  and  "  the  estate  into  which  he  was  brought  by  the 
fall." 

It  might  be  fairly  urged  that  the  idea  of  a  spiritual  nature 
in  man,  in  any  proper  sense  of  the  expression  — certainly  in 
the  ordinary  sense  of  the  expression — is  excluded  by  the  hypoth- 
esis as  defined  and  defended  by  many  of  its  prominent  advocates. 
With  them,  Evolutionism  is  Materialism.  It  maintains  as  a 
prime  principle  the  correlation  not  of  physical  forces  merely, 
but  of  all  forces,  physical,  vital,  intellectual,  emotional,  moral 
and- (if  there  maybe  anything  so  called)  spiritual.  It  regards 
beliefs  and  disbeliefs,  likes  and  dislikes,  the  emotions  of  love 
and  of  patriotism,  the  perception  of  beauty  and  the  sense  of 
duty,  as  in  their  ultimate  analysis,  phenomena  of  matter, 
secreted  by  the  brain  as  the  liver  secretes  bile.  It  makes  Ps}'- 
chology  to  be  but  a  department  of  Physiology.  The  volition 
of  the  murderer  in  pulling  the  trigger,  and  the  explosion  of 
the  powder  and  velocity  of  the  bullet,  are  alike  due  to  the 
operation  of  fixed,  invariable,  physical  laws.  Whether  dis- 
posed to  accept  Professor  Tyndall  as  a  leader  in  scientific 
speculation  or  not,  all  must  admit  that  no  higher  authority 
can  be  quoted  as  to  what  Evolutionism  is.  In  his  "  Fragments 
of  Science  "  he  asks:  "  What  are  the  core  and  essence  of  this 
hypothesis  ?"  And  he  answers,  "  Strip  it  naked,  and  you 
stand  face  to  face  with  the  notion  that  not  alone  the  more 
ignoble  forms  of  animalcular  and  animal  life,  not  alone  the 
nobler  forms  of  the  horse  and  lion,  not  alone  the  exquisite  and 
wonderful  mechanism  of  the  human  body,  but  that  the  human 
mind  itself,  emotion,  intellect,  will,  and  all  their  phenomena, 
were  once  latent  in  a  fiery  cloud."  "  I  do  not  think  that  any 
holder  of  the  evolution  hypothesis  will  say  that  I  overstate  it 
or  overstrain  it  in  any  way.  I  simply  bring  before  you,  un- 
varnished, the  notions  by  which  it  must  stand  or  fall."  After 
maturer  thought,  he  subsequently  utters  the  same  sentiment 
ex  cathedra,  as  President  of  the  British  Association,  in  the 
memorable  sentence  in  which  his  elaborate  discussion  of  the 
relations  of  Science  and  Religion — or,  as  he  would  probably 
prefer  to  state  it,  their  conflicts — culminates.     "  Abandoning" 


17 

says  he,  "  all  disguise,  the  confession  I  feel  bound  to  make 
before  you  is,  that  I  prolong  the  vision  backward  across  the 
boundary  of  the  experimental  evidence,  and  discern  in  that 
Matter  which  we,  in  our  ignorance,  and  notwithstanding  our 
professed  reverence  for  its  Creator  have  hitherto  covered  with 
opprobrium,  the  promise  and  potency  of  every  form  and 
qualit}'  of  life."  True,  he  subsequently  uses  language  that 
seems  intended  to  disclaim  the  inference  to  be  legitimately 
drawn  from  this  formal,  deliberate,  and  carefulh'-worded  avowal 
of  his  belief  It  is,  however,  with  this  avowal  and  not  with  his 
consistency,  that  we  have  to  do.  Now  the  distinctive  charac- 
teristic of  matter  is,  that  its  phenomena  are  determined  by 
physical  forces  acting  in  accordance  with  uniform,  inflexible, 
physical  laws.  The  distinctive  characteristic  of  spirit  is,  that 
it  is  self-determining,  and  its  actions  voluntary.  If  there  is  in 
matter  "the  potency  of  every  form  and  quality  of  life  "  — 
spiritual  life  included — then  there  is  no  such  thing  as  volition, 
and  what  is  called  man's  spiritual  nature  is  but  a  name  for  a 
certain  class  of  physical  phenomena. 

In  his  Belfast  Address  in  1874,  on  the  question  "Are 
Animals  Automatons  ?"  Professor  Huxley,  after  attempting 
to  establish  the  affirmative,  adds,  "  Undoubtedly,  I  do  hold 
that  the  view  I  have  taken  of  the  relations  between  the  phys- 
ical and  mental  faculties  of  brutes  applies  in  its  fulness  and 
entirety  to  man."  It  need  scarcely  be  said  that  this  theory — 
that  the  activity  of  man's  spiritual  nature  is  determined  by 
physical  law  and  not  by  volition — is  inconsistent  with  human 
freedom,  and  therein  with  human  responsibility. 

In  reply  to  the  objection  to  Materialism,  that  it  destroys 
human  freedom  and  responsibility,  we  are  sometimes  met 
with  the  arginnentimi  ad  Jioiiiineni — that  the  same  objection 
may  with  equal  propriety  be  urged  against  the  orthodox 
doctrine  of  predestination.  To  this.  Professor  Huxley  refers 
in  connection  with  the  passage  above  quoted,  and  says  in 
reference  to  the  "  logical  consequences"  of  his  theory,  "  If  for 
preaching  such  doctrine  I  am  to  be  cited  to  the  bar  of  public 
opinion,  I  shall  not  stand  there  alone.  On  the  one  hand  I 
shall  have  St.  Augustine,  John  Calvin,  and  Jonathan  Ed- 
wards." 


18 

Now,  the  certainty  of  the  occurrence  of  a  future  event  is 
one  thing  ;  the  nature  of  the  agency  by  which  it  occurs  is  an 
entirely  different  thing.  By  noting  this  distinction,  the  fal- 
lacy of  the  reply  referred  to  will  be  manifest.  Materialism 
and  the  doctrine  of  predestination  may  be  .said  to  agree,  as  to 
the  certainty  of  the  occurrence  of  the  action.s  of  men  as  pre- 
determined. But  they  differ,  toto  ccrlo,  as  to  the  ?iatnre  of  the 
agency  by  which  they  occur.  According  to  Materialism,  the 
certainty  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  action  is  the  result  of  the 
operation  of  physical  forces  acting  in  accordance  with  physi- 
cal laws,  which  are  fixed  and  invariable.  The  idea  of  the 
volition  of  a  free  agent  is  excluded. 

According  to  the  doctrine  of  predestination,  events  occur 
as  predeterminded, "  yet  so  as  thereby  neither  is  God  the  au- 
thor of  sin,  nor  is  violence  offered  to  the  will  of  the  creatures, 
nor  is  the  liberty  or  contingency  of  second  causes  taken 
away,  but  rather  established."  Conf  of  Faith,  Chap.  III., 
Sec.  I.  The  fact  of  human  freedom  is  asserted  just  as  dis- 
tinctly as  the  fact  of  divine  fore-ordination.  As  regards  the 
agenc}',  therefore,  by  which  human  actions  occur  as  pre-de- 
termined.  Materialism  and  the  doctrine  of  predestination  are 
in  direct  conflict.  Now  the  objectionable  "  logical  conse- 
quences "  referred  to,  have  respect  to  the  f^oint  on  ivhicli  Ma- 
terialism differs  from  the  doctrine  of  predestination,  and  not  to 
any  point  on  which  they  may  be  said  to  agree. 

Edwards  does  indeed  speak  of  the  actions  of  men  occur- 
ring by  "  necessity."  but  he  is  careful  to  state  that  he  means 
"a  moral  or  metaphysical  necessity,"  and  not  "  a  natural  or 
physical  necessity."  "  As  to  the  objection,"  says  he,  "  against 
the  doctrine  which  I  have  endeavored  to  prove,  that  it  )iiakes 
men  no  more  than  machines,  I  would  say,  that  notwithstanding 
this  doctrine,  man  is  entirely,  perfct/y,  and  nnspeakably  dif- 
ferent from  a  mere  machine,  in  that  he  has  reason  and  under- 
standing, with  a  faculty  of  will,  and  so  is  capable  of  volition 
and  choice."  So  far  from  holding  with  Huxley  that  man  is 
"  an  automaton,"  he  explicitly  repudiates  the  doctrine,  and 
teaches  the  very  opposite. 

But,  doubtless  that  class  of  Evolutioni.sts — or  apologists 
for   evolution — who  would  be   interested    in   the   present  dis- 


19 

cussion  would  disclaim  the  bald  materialism  avowed  by  many 
prominent  advocates  of  the  hypothesis.  We  proceed,  there- 
fore to  remark  that  in  the  least  objectionable  form  in  which  it 
can  be  stated,  it  would  seem  to  be  irreconcilable  with  what 
the  Scriptures  teach  as  to  man's  original  and  present  spiritual 
condition.  According  to  the  hypothesis,  out  of  an  assumed 
original  germ — or  germs — of  life  in  its  lowest  form,  higher 
and  still  higher  forms,  terminating  for  the  present  at  least 
in  man,  were  evolved.  In  "  The  Descent  of  Man,"  the  at- 
tempt is  ingeniously  made  to  trace  the  genesis  of  all  the  fac- 
ulties of  man's  spiritual  nature  out  of  the  irrational  impulses 
and  instincts  of  the  lower  orders  of  the  animal  creation. 

According  to  this  theory,  that  being  to  which — or  to  whom 
— the  term  unui  might  for  the  first  time  be  appropriately  ap- 
plied was  undoubtedly,  man  at  his  very  lowest  estate,  intel- 
lectually, morally,  spiritually—  at  the  very  bottom,  so  to  speak, 
of  the  scale  of  humanity.  Moreover,  according  to  this  theory, 
whatever  might  be  called  sinful  in  man's  nature  or  conduct, 
whether  when  in  his  original  lowest  estate,  or  at  any  subse- 
quent stage  of  his  ascent,  was  but  a  necessary  incident  to  a 
condition  of  progressive,  and  hence  incomplete,  development. 
This  condition,  and  whatever  in  connection  therewith  that 
might  be  called  sin,  is  not,  if  the  hypothesis  be  true,  any 
thing  abnormal,  but  normal — the  legitimate  result  of  the  law 
of  his  being — ^just  as  niuch  so  as  rectitude  would  be  when, 
by  the  same  law  of  his  being,  he  had  attained  to  a  higher 
state  of  development.  On  this  point.  Principal  Tulloch — 
whom  no  one  will  accuse  of  illiberal  prejudice  against  either 
the  advanced  science  or  thinking  of  the  present  day — in  his 
"  Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin,"  says,  "  The  favorite  conceptions 
of  modern  Science  involve,  if  they  do  not  start  from,  a  def- 
inite view  of  human  nature  at  variance  with  the  old  biblical 
or  spiritual  view."  "  It  leaves,  for  example,  no  room  for  the 
idea  of  sin.  For  that  which  is  solely  a  growth  of  nature 
cannot  contain  anything  that  is  at  variance  with  its  own 
higher  laws.  If  the  individual  and  social  man  alike  are  merely 
the  outcome  of  natural  forces  working  endlessly  forward  to 
ward  higher  and  more  complex  forms,  then,  whatever  man  is, 


20 

he  is  not  and  cannot  be  a  sinner.  The  mixed  product  of  in- 
ternal and  external  forces — of  what  is  called  organism  and 
environment — he  may,  at  certain  stages  of  his  progress,  be 
very  defective,  but  he  has  not  fallen  below  any  ideal  he  might 
have  reached.  He  is  at  any  point  only  what  the  sum  of 
natural  factors  which  enter  iuto  his  being  have  made  him. 
The  two  conceptions  of  sin  and  of  development,  in  this  nat- 
uralistic sense,  cannot  coexist.  I  cannot  be  the  outcome  of 
natural  law,  and  yet  accountable  for  the  fact  that  I  am  no  bet- 
ter than  I  am."  Such  then,  is  the  theory  of  man's  original 
and  present  spiritual  condition  involved  in  the  development 
hypothesis.  A  simple  statement  of  the  Scriptural  theory  will 
exhibit  how  the  two  are  not  only  not  consistent,  but  at  every 
point  directly  antagonistic. 

With  respect  to  other  living  creatures,  the  Biblical  record 
is,  "  And  God  said.  Let  the  waters  bring  forth  abundantly  the 
moving  creature  that  hath  life."  (Gen.  i  :  20.)  "  Let  the 
earth  bring  forth  the  living  creature  after  his  kind."  (Gen. 
1:24.)  This  command  to  "  the  waters  "  to  bring  forth  "  the 
moving  creature,"  and  to  "  the  earth"  to  bring  forth  "  the 
living  creature,"  may  be  intended — we  do  not  say  that  it  cer- 
tainly was  intended — to  intimate  that  the  generation  of  the 
lower  orders  of  animals  was  in  accordance  with  pre-established 
physical  laws.  The  language  in  regard  to  the  creation  of 
man  differs  entirely  from  that  just  referred  to,  and  this  differ- 
ence was  doubtless  not  without  design  and  significance.  The 
record  here  is,  "  And  the  Lord  God  " — not  "  the  earth,"  or 
"  the  waters,"  or  any  other  pre-existing  thing  or  creature, 
but  "  the  Lord  God — Jehovah  Elohim — formed  man  of  the 
dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath 
of  life  ;  and  man  became  a  living  soul."  (Gen.  2  :  7.)  Further, 
according  to  the  Scriptures,  not  only  was  the  manner  of  man's 
creation  thus  peculiar,  but  a  fact  of  even  greater  importance 
in  its  bearing  on  the  point  immediately  under  consideration  is 
asserted.  It  is  taught  that  in  pursuance  of  a  special  divine 
purpose,  man  was  made  in  tlic  image'  of  God.  "  And  God 
said,  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness." 
Then    follows    the    record,  "  So  God    made   man  in   his  own 


21 

image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him."  (Gen.  i  :  26,  27.) 
Now  is  it  credible  that  by  this  language  the  sacred  writer 
intended  to  assert  that  man  as  originally  created — made  in 
the  image  of  God — his  spiritual  nature  directly  inbreathed  by 
Jehovah — was  but  one  remove  above  the  brute  ?  Is  it  credible 
that  the  writer  of  this  record  intended  to  teach,  that  within 
the  limits  of  the  variation  of  an  animal  from  the  typical  form 
and  faculties  of  the  parent,  the  son  of  one  of  the  highest 
orders  of  apes  was  superior  to  its — or  his-^immediate  pro- 
genitor, and  that  in  virtue  of  this  variation,  it — or  he — became 
a  human  soul,  made  in  God's  image?  And  yet  this  must  be 
accepted  as  the  teaching  of  the  inspired  record,  to  harmonize 
the  Scriptures  with  the  hypothesis  of  evolution. 

But  further,  the  Scriptures  teach  that  the  original  progeni- 
tors of  the  human  race,  made  in  the  image  of  God  and  left  to 
the  freedom  of  their  own  will,  fell  from  the  estate  in  which 
they  were  created,  by  the  voluntary  transgression  of  the  divine 
law  ;  that  this  transgression  of  God's  law  was  sin  ;  that  this 
sin  involved  culpability,  and  by  the  just  judgment  of  God 
brought  "  death  into  the  world  and  all  our  woe ;"  that,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  fall  of  man  from  the  estate  in  which  he  was 
originally  created,  the  moral  history  of  the  race — apart  from 
siipcrnatitral  inf/iiciict — has  been  constantly  and  only  a  retro- 
gression, and  not  a  prog'-ession,  a  descent  and  not  an  ascent. 
That  this  is  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures,  no  extended  quota- 
tion is  needed  to  prove.  Let  a  single  reference  suffice.  In 
the  first  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Paul  gives  what 
may  be  called  the  Scriptural  theory  respecting  the  degradation 
of  so  large  a  portion  of  the  human  race.  He  declares  of  the 
heathen,  that  "  when  they  knew  God,  they  glorified  him  not  as 
God,  neither  were  thankful  ;  but  became  vain  in  their  imagina- 
tions, and  their  foolish  heart  was  darkened.  Professing  them- 
selves to  be  wise,  they  became  fools,  and  changed  the  glory  of  the 
uncorruptible  God  into  an  image  like  to  corruptible  man,  and 
to  birds,  and  four-footed  beasts,  and  creeping  things.  Where- 
fore God  gave  them  up  to  uncleanness  and  vile  affections." 
"They  did  not  like  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge,  there- 
fore God  gave  them  over  to  a   reprobate   mind."     Moreover, 


22 

Paul  did  not  regard  the  idolatry  and  debasing  vices  of  the 
heathen  as  excusable  because  the  necessary  outgrowth  of  an 
imperfectly  developed  condition,  but  expressly  declares,  that 
"  in  the  judgment  of  God,  they  who  do  such  things  are  worthy 
of  death."  Now,  mark,  our  immediate  inquiry  is  not  whether 
the  Bible  doctrine  concerning  man's  original  and  present  spir- 
itual condition,  concerning  sin,  and  the  moral  history  of  the 
race  is  true,  but,  is  this  doctrine  consistent  with  the  develop- 
ment hypothesis  on  these  subjects  ? 

Again,  Evolutionism  is  not  only  inconsistent  with  the  Scrip- 
tures as  to  man's  origin,  the  nature  of  sin,  and  man's  original 
and  present  spiritual  condition  ;  its  teaching  as  to  the  future 
of  the  human  race  is  alike  irreconcilable  with  the  teaching  of 
the  Scriptures  as  to  tJie  way  of  mans  salvation,  its  nature,  and 
man's  destiny. 

To  show  that  the  hypothesis,  as  it  respects  the  future,  "  is 
not  necessarily  hostile  to  our  religious  faith,"  it  has  been  said,* 
"  Were  we  constrained  to  trace  our  descent  from  apes,  or 
frogs,  or  infusoria,  we  could  look  with  no  little  complacency 
on  our  humble  origin,  from  which  we  might  anticipate  further 
development  in  a  posterity  of  angels  and  archangels,  as  far 
superior  to  ourselves  as  we  are  to  the  brutes  or  the  animalculae 
from  which  we  sprang.  When  we  compare  the  alleged  begin- 
nings of  our  race  with  its  present  condition,  there  is  no  limit 
to  what  it  may  become,  and  the  brightest  visions  of  prophecy 
may  be  transcended  by  the  history  that  shall  yet  be  written." 

The  first  thought  suggested  by  this  language  is,  that  the 
progressive  development  which,  according  to  the  hypothesis, 
men  are  permitted  to  anticipate,  is  one  ivitJi  tvJiich  jnoral  char- 
acter and  conduct  have  nothing  to  do.  Its  occurrence  is  determ- 
ined by  the  very  constitution  of  man's  being,  by  a  law  of  his 
nature.  Any  connection  between  the  performance  of  present 
duty  and  future  destiny  is  excluded,  and  has  no  more  place  in 
the  development  of  angels  out  of  men,  than  it  had  in  the  devel- 
opment of  men  out  of  apes.     Is  this  Scriptural  ? 


*See  tlie  Introduction  to  the  Course  of  Lectures  hy  Dr.   Peal>ody,  previously 
referred  to. 


23 

But  further,  by  the  evolution  of  the  human  race  out  of  apes, 
frogs,  and  infusoria,  is  not  meant  that  all  individuals  of  the 
lower  races  were,  or  are  to  be,  developed  into  men,  but  simply 
this,  that  through  exceptional  individuals  of  each  lower  race — 
especially  favored  by  "  natural  selection," — higher  and  still 
higher  orders  of  animals,  in  a  gradually  ascending  series,  ter- 
minating for  the  present  in  man,  have  been  evolved.  Accord- 
ing then  to  the  hypothesis,  the  further  development  which 
men  are  permitted  to  "  anticipate,"  is  not  that  of  individual 
angels  and  archangels  out  of  individual  men,  but  a  race  of 
angels  out  of  the  human  race,  and  this  through  a  long  succes- 
sion of  intervening  races  in  a  gradually  ascending  scale,  and 
after  countless  ages — the  only  connection  between  immediately 
succeeding  races  in  the  series  being  the  exceptionally  favored 
individuals  of  each  race,  the  elect  by  "  natural  selection." 
Now  it  is  respectfully  submitted,  in  such  an  anticipation,  have 
we  any  special  reason  for  "  complacency  ?"  The  same  and  no 
more  than  had  the  great  mass  of  apes,  and  frogs,  and  infusoria 
of  past  ages  reason  for  "  complacency,"  because  forsooth, 
through  certain  individuals  of  their  respective  races,  as  links 
in  a  long  series,  the  human  race  was,  after  millions  of  years,  to 
be  evolved.  Or  whatever  "  complacency"  such  an  anticipation 
may  afford,  does  it  in  any  measure  satisfy  the  wants  of  man's 
spiritual  nature  ?  Can  it  be  made  the  substitute  for  a  religious 
hope  ?  What  our  immortal  spirits  crave  is  the  prospect  of  a 
future  higher,  happier,  holier  state,  not  for  certain  individuals 
merely  of  the  human  race — were  even  that  secured  by  the 
hypothesis — much  less  for  another  and  entirely  distinct  race 
of  beings,  but  an  immortality  of  blessedness  for  ourselves.  Lit- 
tle reason  have  we  for  complacency  in  the  prospect  of  the 
development  of  higher  orders  of  beings  out  of  the  human  race, 
if  men  individually,  at  death,  are  to  become  like  "the  beasts 
that  perish"  — or  as  Professor  Tyndall  more  poetically,  but  with 
no  more  satisfaction  to  the  cravings  of  our  spiritual  nature, 
expresses  it  —  "  shall  have  melted  like  streaks  of  morning  cloud 
into  the  infinite  azure  of  the  past." 

As  if  appreciating  that  the  development  above  mentioned 
would  not  be  regarded  as  justifying  the  statement  it  was  made 


24 

to  establish — that  Evolutionism  "  is  not  necessarily  hostile  to 
our  religious  faith" — the  writer  adds,  "  When  we  are  told  that 
the  individual  human  being  actually  passes  through  the  vari- 
ous forms  of  his  lower  ancestry,  why  may  he  not  in  his  own 
person  pass  successively  through  all  the  higher  forms  of  which 
finite  being  is  susceptible  ?"  The  physiological  fact  to  which 
we  understand  this  language  to  refer  is,  that  the  human  being, 
in  its  embryonic  development,  assumes  successively  certain 
forms  resembling  the  forms  of  certain  of  the  lower  orders  of 
animals  at  the  same  stages  of  development.  On  this  ground, 
it  is  not  indeed  asserted,  but  after  the  manner  of  the  author 
of  "  The  Origin  of  Species,"  when  he  would  intimate  what 
he  does  not  feel  at  liberty  to  assert,  it  is  asked,  "  Why  may 
he  not" — that  is,  why  may  not  each  individual  of  the  human 
race — "  pass  successively  through  all  the  higher  forms  of 
which  finite  being  is  susceptible  ?"  Our  first  remark  in 
reply  is,  that  the  statement  as  to  what  "  we  are  told,"  is 
inaccurate,  and  the  inference  intimated  is  based  on  the  inaccu- 
racy. "  The  individual  human  being"  does  not  "  actually  pass" 
through  the  forms  of  the  lower  orders  of  animals.  The  simple 
fact  referred  to  is  this  and  nothing  more — that  in  the  element- 
ary stages  of  foetal  development  the  human  embryo  closely 
resembles  the  embrj^o  of  the  lower  orders  of  animals  at  the 
same  stage  of  development.  Darwin  himself,  in  "  The  Descent 
of  Man,"  states  the  physiological  fact  with  scientific  precision. 
He  says,  "  The  (human)  embryo  at  a  very  early  period  can 
hardly  be  distinguished  'ixoxw.  that  of  other  members  of  the  verte- 
brate kingdom."  (The  Italics  are  our  own.)  Again,  "  The 
embryo  of  man  closely  resembles  that  of  other  mammals."  He 
gives  drawings  of  the  human  and  of  the  canine  embryo,  in 
which  the  points  of  resemblance,  and  at  the  same  time  of  un- 
likeness,  are  distinctly  exhibited.  The  precise  fact,  therefore, 
is  a  very  different  thing  from  that  which  is  asserted,  when  it  is 
said  that  "  the  human  being  actually  passes  '  through  the  forms 
of  the  lower  orders  of  animals.  Close  resemblance  is  not  iden- 
tity. Were  the  resemblance  so  exact  and  entire  that  under  the 
microscope  of  highest  power  the  two  embryos  were  absolutely 
indistinguishable,  it  would  prove  nothing  as  to  the  point  in 


question.  For  that  which  differentiates  a  Hving  organism  in 
embryo — makes  it  to  be  what  it  is  in  kind  and  nature  as  dis- 
tinguished from  other  Hving  organisms  in  embryo— is  not  the 
external  form  or  even  the  apparent  physical  features  of  the 
ovule,  but  the  quality  of  the  life  which  animates  it— that  mys- 
terious principle  in  the  ovule  (which  no  microscopic  power 
can  discern)  that  determines  the  form  and  character  of  the 
subsequent  development.  Now  this  plastic  principle — this 
nisus  forniativiis — is  as  to  kind  or  nature  jusfas  peculiar,  dis- 
tinct, and  definite  a  thing,  in  the  germ  ab  initio,  as  in  the  devel- 
oped living  being.  Whatever  be  the  seeming  resemblance  in 
the  early  stages  of  embryonic  development,  the  ovules  of  ani- 
mals of  different  orders  or  species — man  included — invariably 
develop  into  beings  after  their  kind,  and  this  unquestionably 
in  virtue  of  their  distinct  and  peculiar  nature  a/)  initio.  In  the 
physiological  fact  accurately  stated,  there  is  nothing  to  justify 
the  confidence  with  which  Evolutionists  refer  to  it  as  well  nigh 
conclusive  in  favor  of  their  hypothesis.  As  an  argument  to 
prove  that  individuals  of  the  human  race  may  hope  for  devel- 
opment into  beings  of  a  higher  order,  it  is  certainly  wholly 
irrelevant. 

To  exhibit  this  still  more  conclusively,  if  possible,  let  the 
inquiry  above  quoted  be  put  in  this  form  :  "We  are  told  that 
the  individual  ape  actually  passses  through  the  various  forms  of 
his  lower  ancestry  ;  why  may  he  not  in  his  own  person  pass 
successively  through  all  the  higher  forms  of  which  finite  being 
is  susceptible  ?"  We  see  no  reason  why  the  argument  is  hot 
just  as  good  for  monkey  as  for  man. 

Still  further,  by  way  of  reply  to  the  above  inquiry,  it  may 
be  asked.  Were  the  existing  orders  of  finite  beings  higher  than 
man — "  angels  and  archangels  " — evolved  out  of  the  human 
race  by  "  natural  selection,"  or  in  any  other  way  ?  If  not,  is 
there  any  reason  to  believe  that  such  beings  will  ever  be  thus 
evolved  ? 

We  have  seen  that  the  development  with  respect  to  man 
which  Evolutionism  promises,  is  that  of  a  higher  race  of  beings 
out  of  the  human  race.  We  remark  further,  that  the  immor- 
tality of  the  individual  man  is   not   only  not   included  in,  but 


26 

would  seem  to  be  irreconcilable  with,  the  hypothesis.  Accord- 
ing to  the  hypothesis,  out  of  an  original  germ  of  animal  life  in 
its  lowest  form,  higher  and  still  higher  forms  terminating  in 
man  have  been  evolved  by  slight  gradations — such  as  are  pos- 
sible within  the  limits  of  the  variation  of  the  offspring  of  an 
animal  from  the  parent  type.  This  idea  of ^;W7/c?/ development 
is  so  marked  a  feature  of  the  hypothesis,  that  by  some  of  its 
recent  advocates  Evolution  has  been  designated  "  the  Law  of 
Continuity."  Now  with  respect  to  the  various  forms  of  animal 
life  preceding  man,  we  presume  the  immortality  of  the  indi- 
vidual will  not  be  maintained.  And  we  presume  none  will 
maintain  that  the  human  spirit  has  become  immortal  by  the 
gradual  approach  to  immortality  in  the  spirits  of  the  differ- 
ent orders  of  animals  preceding  man  in  the  ascending 
scale.  If  then,  man  be  now  immortal,  the  only  other  alterna- 
tive, as  it  would  seem,  is,  that  the  wide — not  to  say,  impas.sa- 
ble — gulf  between  mortality  and  immortality  of  spirit  must 
have  been  crossed  per  salttim  ;  and  yet  this,  regarded  scientifi- 
cally, would  be  fatal  to  the  hypothesis,  and  theologically, 
would  justify,  if  it  did  not  indeed  demand,  the  direct  divine 
agency. 

In  the  development  intimated  in  the  inquiries  above  quoted, 
there  is  presented  all  that  man  is  permitted  to  anticipate  ac- 
cording to  the  hypothesis  of  evolution.  Now  we  again  remind 
the  reader,  our  immediate  inquiry  is  not,  whether  this  is  the 
truth,  but  is  this  only  hope  set  before  us  in  the  Gospel  of 
Science,  the  "  hope  set  before  us  in  the  Gospel  "  of  Revela- 
tion ?  Or  is  not  such  teaching  not  only  inconsistent  with,  but 
directly  antagonistic  to,  the  whole  system  of  spiritual  truth 
taught  in  the  Word  of  God,  concerning  the  nature  and  the  way 
of  man's  salvation  ? 

According  to  the  Scriptures,  there  is  for  every  individual 
of  the  human  race  an  immortality  of  blessedness  or  woe,  and 
this  determined,  not  by  the  operation  of  physical  law,  but  "we 
must  all  appear  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ,  to  be  judged 
according  to  the  deeds  done  in  the  body."  According  to  the 
Scriptures,  for  fallen  man  salvation  is  possible  in  no  other  way 
than  by  supernatural  agency — by   direct   divine   intervention. 


Men,  by  nature,  "are  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins  " — a  state  from 
which  there  is  in  man  no  more  inherent  power  of  development 
into  a  higher  and  holier  state  of  being  than  there  is  power  in 
a  corpse  to  develop  into  a  living  soul.  The  central  idea  of 
the  religion  of  the  Bible  -  not  taught  obscurely  in  some  doubt- 
ful passages,  but  asserted  or  implied  on  every  page — is  man's 
salvation  through  the  incarnation,  obedience,  death,  and  resur- 
rection of  a  supernatural  Redeemer.  "  God  was  manifest  in 
the  flesh."  "  It  must  needs  be  that  Christ  should  suffer." 
"  Without  the  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission  of  sin." 
For  such  a  development  as  Evolutionism  promises,  whence 
the  necessity  for,  or  where  the  possibility  of,  the  intervention 
of  a  supernatural  Redeemer  ? 

Moreover,  if  the  Scriptural  record  concerning  the  person 
and  work  of  Christ  be  admitted,  then  notable  physical  phe- 
nomena have  occurred  in  human  history  by  the  direct  divine 
agency.  The  generation  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ  was 
by  direct  divine  agency.  "  The  Holy  Ghost,"  said  the  angel 
to  the  virgin  Mother  of  our  Lord,  "  shall  come  upon  thee,  and 
the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee,  therefore  that 
holy  thing  that  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son 
of  God."  And  here  we  may  ask.  If  there  was  direct  divine 
intervention  in  the  generation  of  the  human  nature  of  "  the 
last  Adam,"  shall  we  hesitate  to  accept  the  Scriptural  account 
of  the  creation  of"  the  first  Adam,"  by  direct  divine  interven- 
tion ? 

And  so  in  regard  to  the  rcsuncction  of  Christ — Was  the 
reanimation  of  the  lifeless  form  that  for  three  days  lay  in 
Joseph's  tomb  without  corruption  an  evolution  by  a  law  of 
nature  ?  Or  was  it  not  by  God's  immediate  agency — 
in  the  language  of  Scripture,  "  according  to  his  mighty  power, 
which  he  wrought  in  Christ  when  he  raised  him  from  the 
dead?"  So  it  may  be  asked  in  regard  to  the  other  miracles 
recorded  in  the  Scriptures.  Were  they  but  phenomena  of  the 
laws  of  nature,  or  were  they  not  wrought  by  immediate  divine 
agency  ?  However  some  may  speculate  as  to  the  possibility 
of  explaining  certain  miracles  on  the  hypothesis  of  the  exist- 
ence of  a  higher  class  of  laws  of  nature,  of  which  we  have  no 


28 

knowledge,  there  are  other  miracles  of  which  the  explanation 
by  such  an  hypothesis  would  seem  to  be  inconceivable — and 
in  any  case,  the  hypothesis  is  directly  inconsistent  with  the 
Biblical  idea  of  a  viimcle,  that  is,  the  immediate  manifestation 
of  Divine  power.  Phenomena  occurring  by  the  laws  of  nature, 
whether  those  laws  be  to  us,  known  or  unknown,  may  be 
novel  and  marvellous,  but  they  are  not  miraculous.  Again 
we  may  ask,  If  the  occurrence  of  other  miracles  recorded  in 
Scripture  be  admitted,  shall  we  hesitate  to  receive  the  declara- 
tion of  Scripture  that  the  origin  of  the  human  race  was  by 
immediate  Divine  agency? 

But  further,  the  salvation  of  the  Gospel  involves  not  only 
the  incarnation,  death,  and  resurrrection  of  a  supernatural 
Saviour,  but  the  continual  intervention  of  another  supernatural 
agent — the  Holy  Spirit.  To  be  saved,  man  "  must  be  born 
again,"  born  not  from  within,  but  from  above — not  by  a 
law  of  his  nature,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Evolutionism  re- 
jects alike  the  necessity  for,  or  the  possibility  of,  any  such 
supernatural  intervention. 

And  once  more,  the  Bible  teaches  that  the  salvation  of  the 
Gospel  is  a  irdnnpiion — a  restoration  of  man  to  a  former  state 
of  happiness  and  holiness — the  state  in  which  he  was 
originally  created.  The  Saviour  of  men  is  not  merely  a  bene- 
factor but  a  Redeemer.  The  representation  in  the  Scriptures 
of  the  consummation  of  the  plan  of  redemption — whether  it 
is  to  be  understood  literally  or  figuratively — is  the  earth 
redeemed  from  the  effects  of  the  curse  restored  to  man 
redeemed  from  the  effects  of  the  fall.  To  any  such  concep- 
tion, it  need  scarcely  be  said,  the  development  hypothesis  is 
directly  antagonistic. 

In  answer,  then,  to  the  question  proposed  for  discussion, 
we  feel  justified  in  replying,  that  Evolutionism  is  irreconcilable 
with  the  direct  teaching  of  the  Scriptures  as  to  the  origin  of 
man — not  only  in  the  opening  chapters  of  Genesis,  but  re- 
peatedly, distinctly,  and  uniformly  throughout  the  Bible ; 
that  important  Biblical  doctrines  are  based  on  the  Mosaic  ac- 
count of  the  creation  and  fall  of  man,  regarded  as  the  literal 
record  of  historical  facts,  and  if  this  interpretation  be  incor- 


29 

rect,  the  argument  is  fallacious  ;  that  Evolutionism  is  irrec- 
oncilable with  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures  as  to  man's 
nature,  his  original  and  present  spiritual  condition,  the 
nature  of  sin,  the  nature  and  the  way  of  man's  salvation, 
and  his  future  destiny — in  short,  with  the  whole  system  of 
truth,  for  the  revelation  of  which  the  Scriptures  were  given  to 
men.  The  late  Professor  Tayler  Lewis  did  not  exaggerate, 
when,  in  reference  to  "the  doctrine  of  a  prinuis  Jioino,-Si  first 
man,  made  man  by  the  fiat  of  God,"  he  said,  "  Between  Dar- 
winism and  Biblical  truth  there  is  a  polar  opposition.  Adam- 
ity  and  Christianity  (if  the  use  of  such  words  may  be  par- 
doned for  the  sake  of  the  parallelism  they  so  briefly  present) 
go  together.  Here  is  to  be  an  end  of  concession  to  science  or 
any  thing  else.  It  is  the  \dQa.stantis  vel cadentis  Christianitatis. 
The  rejection  of  it  makes  havoc  of  the  whole  Bible,  opening 
a  chasm  which  no  exegetical  or  theological  device  can 
close." 

If  this  conclusion  be  well  founded,  it  follows  : 
First.  That  in  weighing  the  evidence  for  and  against  Evolu- 
tionism as  it  respects  man,  the  evidence  that  the  Bible  is  from 
God,  and  not  "  a  cunningly  devised  fable,"  must  be  taken  into 
account.  To  prove  that  man  is  descended  from  an  ape,  it  is 
not  enough  that  certain  facts  of  science  may  seem  to  favor 
such  a  conclusion.  When  the  evidence  in  its  favor  becomes 
more  conclusive  than  the  evidence  that  the  Scriptures  were 
"given  by  the  inspiration  of  God,"  then,  and  not  till  then, 
will  the  candid  seeker  after  truth  accept  the  hypothesis. 

Although  the  consideration  of  the  scientific  evidence  on 
the  subject  is  aside  from  the  present  inquiry,  it  may  be  proper 
here  to  remark,  that  many  whose  opinions  are  entitled  to 
respect,  including  prominent  Evolutionists — most  notably 
Wallace,  who  shares  with  Darwin  the  honor  of  having  re-in- 
troduced the  hypothesis  to  favor — maintain  on  scientific 
grounds,  that  the  origin  of  man  is  siii  generis,  and  not  to  be 
accounted  for  by  the  hypothesis.  At  the  late  Annual  Meeting 
of  German  naturalists  at  Munich  in  September  last,  Virchow — 
an  authority  not  inferior  to  Haeckel — maintained,  that  "anthrop- 


30 

ological    investigations    directly    contradict    the     doctrine    of 
evolution."* 

Secondly.  From  the  argument  above  presented  we  think  it 
must  be  evident  how  short-sighted,  unreasonable,  and  utterly 
impracticable  is  the  admonition  frequently  given  by  timid 
apologists  for  the  Scriptures,  that  in  view  of  past  contro- 
versies between  scientists  and  theologians.  Christians  ought 
not  to  commit  themselves  or  the  Scriptures  to  either  side  in 
this  controversy,  but  should  treat  the  subject  as  an  open  ques- 
tion—  assured  that  whatever  be  the  ultimate  verdict  of  science, 
it  will  be  found  that  the  Bible  can  be  interpreted  therewith. 
This  language  affords  some  justification  for  Professor  Hux- 
ley's sneer  at  "  the  marvellous  fiexibilit}- "  of  the  original 
Scriptures.  Every  reader  of  the  Bible  must  acknowledge 
that  its  teaching  concerning  man's  origin,  nature,  and  destiny 
is,  as  to  extent,  explicitness,  and  importance,  wholly  differ- 
ent from  its  teaching  concerning  the  structure  of  the  solar 
system,  or  the  length  of  a  creative  day.  To  assume  that 
principles  of  interpretation  based  on  the  teaching  of  Scrip- 
ture and  the  history  of  doctrine  on  these  latter  subjects,  are 
applicable  to  the  former,  is — to  say  the  least — illogical.  As 
well  might  one  maintain  that  because  we  may  treat  as  an 
open  question,  whether  negroes  are  descendants  of  Canaan, 
we  may  therefore  treat  as  an  open  question,  whether  the  Jews 
are  descendants  of  Abraham.  If  the  Scriptures  be  a  revela- 
tion from  God,  are  we  at  liberty  to  treat  as  an  open  question, 
whether  man  was  created  in  "the  image  of  God"  and  by 
imnlediate  divine  agency  ?  Can  we  treat  the  doctrine  of  the 
fall  of  man  as  an  open  question?  Can  we  treat  the  doctrine 
of  a  supernatural  salvation  by  a  supernatural  Saviour  as  an 
open  question  ?  Can  we  treat  the  doctrine,  that  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ,  and  the  other  miricles  recorded  in  Scripture, 
were  supernatural,  as  an  open  question  ?  Can  we  treat  the 
doctrine   of  the  supernatural   agency   of  the    Holy   Spirit   in 

*For  a  concise  statement  of  the  objections  on  scientific  grounds  to  Evolutionism 
as  it  respects  Man,  see  Dr.  McCosh's  "  Christianity  and  Positiveism,"  Lecture  II ; 
also  the  Appendix,  Art.  I,  on  •'  Gaps  in  the  Theory  of  Development,"  and  Art. 
II,  on  "  Darwin's  Descent  of  Man." 


31 

regenerating  and  sanctifying  believers  as  an  open  question  ? 
Can  we  treat  the  doctrine  of  immortality — the  eternal  blessed- 
ness of  the  righteous  and  the  eternal  punishment  of  the 
wicked — as  an  open  question  ?  On  such  subjects  as  these, 
can  a  genuine  faith  be  even  provisional  ?  If  such  doctrines  as 
these  are  to  be  treated  as  open  questions,  or  to  be  accepted 
provisionally  until  science  has  settled  their  truth  or  falsity, 
then  is  the  Bible  the  most  useless  of  books,  the  occupation  of 
the  Gospel  minister  is  gone,  and  "  Lay  Sermons  "  from  dis- 
tinguished scientists  are  "the  only  infallible  rule  to  direct  us 
what  man  is  to  believe  concerning  God,  and  what  duty  God 
requires  of  man." 

But  some  may  be  ready  to  ask.  Suppose  that  science 
should  hereafter  prove  that  man  was  descended  from  an  ape, 
what  then  becomes  of  the  Bible  and  Evangelical  Religion  ? 
This  question  may  be  answered  by  asking  another.  Suppo.se 
that,  hereafter,  it  should  be  discovered  that  two  and  two  make 
five,  what  then  becomes  of  our  Mathematics  ?  Suppose  that,  in 
the  progress  of  science,  it  should  hereafter  be  found  that 
matter  does  not  attract  but  repels  matter,  what  then  becomes 
of  our  Physics  ?  Suppose  that,  in  the  progress  of  Physiology, 
it  should  hereafter  be  proved  that  thought,  and  affection,  and 
emotion,  are  nothing  but  .secretions  of  the  brain — determined 
by  the  proportions  present  of  oxygen  and  hydrogen,  and 
nitrogen,  and  carbon,  and  especially  phosphorus  (as  it  already 
is  -said,  "  no  phosphorus,  no  thought ")  what  then  becomes  of 
our  Metaphysics  and  our  Ethics  ?  The  answer  to  these  ques- 
tions— as  to  the  question  which  suggested  them — is,  that 
science  can  never  prove  that  which  is  not  true,  and  there  is 
little  interest  and  no  profit  in  speculating  as  to  the  pos- 
sible conclusions  that  may  be  drawn  from  an  impossible 
premise. 

If  this  reply  be  unsatisfactory  to  the  inquirer,  we  propose 
.still  another  question.  Suppose  that  .science  should  ultimately 
prove  that  the  Biblical  account  of  the  origin  of  man  is  true 
— what  then  becomes  of  those  who  in  the  mean  time,  accept 
the  false  hypothesis  and  reject  the  Bible  ? — or  of  those  who, 
awaiting  the   final  verdict   of  science,  treat   the  in.spiration  of 


32 

the  Bible  as  an  open  question?  The  Scriptures  answer  this 
question  when  they  declare  that  "  if  the  Gospel  be  hid  " — 
whether  through  ignorance  or  the  conceit  of  knowledge, 
whether  through  false  philosophy  or  the  speculations  of"  sci- 
ence falsely  so-called  " — they  to  whom  it  is  hid  "are  lost." 
There  is  one  doctrine  which  science  and  revelation  agree  in 
teaching — the  responsibility  of  man  for  his  belief  The  vio- 
lation of  moral  as  well  as  of  physical  law — whether  done 
wilfully  or  ignorantly — will  be  followed  by  its  legitimate  con- 
sequences. If  the  Scriptures  be  but  "  a  cunningly  devised 
fable,"  and  faith  in  them  a  delusion,  then  at  death  believers  in 
the  Bible  together  with  those  who  reject  it,  will — it  may  be 
— "  melt  away  like  a  morning  cloud  into  the  infinite  azure  of 
the  past."  If  the  development  hypothesis  as  to  the  origin  of 
man  shall  in  a  little  while  take  its  place — as  we  doubt  not  it 
will — with  other  exploded  scientific  speculations,  then  they  who 
accept  it  with  its  proper  logical  consequences  will,  in  the  life 
to  come,  have  their  portion  with  those  who,  in  this  life,  "know 
not  God  and  obey  not  the  gospel  of  his  Son." 

We  cannot  close  this  discussion  more  appropriately  th.m  in 
the  words  of  Principal  Dawson — whose  right  to  speak  with 
authority  on  this  subject  will  not  be  questioned — "  What  we 
know  of  primitive  man  from  geological  investigation  presents  no 
contradiction  to  the  history  of  his  origin  in  the  Bible,  but  rather 
gives  such  corroboration  as  warrants  the  expectation,  that  as 
our  knowledge  of  pre-historic  man  increases,  it  will  more  and 
more  fully  bring  out  the  force  of  those  few  and  bold  touches 
with  which  it  has  pleased  God  to  enable  his  ancient  prophets 
to  sketch  the  early  history  of  our  species.  Truth  and  divin- 
ity are  stamped  on  every  line  of  the  early  chapters  of  Genesis, 
alike  in  their  archaic  simplicity,  and  in  that  accuracy  as  to 
facts  which  enables  them  not  only  to  stand  unharmed  amid 
the  discoveries  of  modern  science,  but  to  display  new  beauties 
as  we  are  able  more  and  more  fully  to  compare  them  with  the 
records  stored  up  from  of  old  in  the  recesses  of  the  earth. 
Those  who  base  their  hopes  for  the  future  on  the  glorious 
revelations  of  the  Bible  need  not  be  ashamed  of  its  story  of 
the  past." 


